Draftsmen, artists and designers have been fighting eraser debris since the invention of the eraser. For years the eraser debris has been pushed or blown from the point of origin and allowed to settle all over the work station covering books, drawing tools and everything else in its path.
Traditionally the eraser debris has been whisked aside with an inexpensive brush. With the advent of high tech office computers, calculators and the like, loose debris are no longer tolerable. The eraser debris can cause severe problems in electronic devices, floppy disks and the like. Simply brushing the eraser debris aside is no longer a desirable method of dealing with the problem and there is not a product on today's market that offers an acceptable alternative. The cost of potential damage to office equipment outweighs the expense of an alternative method.
There are three basic types of vacuum cleaners and a wide variety of nozzle attachments. Examples of the three types and a typical nozzle are as follows:
The hand held vacuum as in U.S. Pat. No. 4,011,624 to Proett (1975) which discloses a device that is hand held and battery operated. This device is too bulky and will tire the operator during extended use, the large nozzle makes this device awkward when attempting to focus it on a specific task, the motor housing is not attachable by any means to or around a work station which will create an obstacle for the operator when not in use, and the inability of the device to be positioned in a ready to use stance, handy to the operator, renders this particular device incompatible with the working environment.
The floor canister with hose vacuum as in U.S. Pat. No. 2,351,507 to Hallock (1942) which discloses a device consisting of a main housing that rests on the floor with a flexible section of hose connected to a rigid tube with various attachments. The lack of an on/off switch located on the wand attachment for vacuum control will require the operator to exert extra effort in locating the switch during his or her course of work causing wasted time and motions. The bulky hose will result in it dragging across the drawing surface which will be disruptive to any drawing tools on the work surface causing potential damage to the surrounding art. The hose length is not adequate to reach all areas of the work surface, thus rendering this device a useless tool for the draftsman.
The upright vacuum of U.S. Pat. No. 4,446,594 to Ibaraki, Masas, and Sunagawa (1984) which discloses a device that rolls on the floor and is maneuvered by a handle. The physical nature of this device renders it unacceptable or incompatible with a table top working environment.
A hand held wand as in U.S. Pat. No. 4,506,594 to LaMonte (1982) which discloses a device that is attachable to a vacuum cleaner. This wand is too bulky, it is not designed for ease of gripping, it would be very difficult to direct and focus on a given task, and the absence of an on/off switch renders this device as an unacceptable alternative to the traditional brush.